CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER

Dr. Tom Fluri Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE CSET Seminar Santiago, 26th May 2015

© RWE

© Fraunhofer ISE

www.ise.fraunhofer.de

AGENDA CONCENTRATING SOLAR POWER  Technology overview  Market overview  Why CSP?  CSP for Chile  Challenges

2 © Fraunhofer ISE

Technology Overview CSP Collector Technologies

Parabolic trough

Linear Fresnel

Dish Stirling

Central receiver

70 – 90

60 – 120

300 – 4000

500 – 1000

commercial

commercial

commercial

14%

12%

18%

17%

Current max. plant capacity

280 MW

30 MW

1.5 MW

126 MW

Max. storage

up to 8h

0.5h

-

up to 18h

Conc. Factor

Status commercial

Annual efficiency

3 © Fraunhofer ISE

Technology Overview CSP Plant with Thermal Storage

Hot Tank

HX

Cold Tank

4 © Fraunhofer ISE

Source: DLR, IRES 2009

Market Overview Plants in Operation (Nominal Capacity (MW) per region)

5 © Fraunhofer ISE

Market Overview Plants in Operation (Nominal Capacity (MW) per technology)

6 © Fraunhofer ISE

Why CSP? High capacity factor 

Capacity factor describes ratio between actual annual output and maximum theoretical output (continuous operation at nominal capacity throughout the year)



Optional storage integration (e.g. Gemasolar) or co-firing allows for range of achievable capacity factors Iv anpah 33%

Gem as olar 75% Kuray m at IS CC 77%

S olana 43%

(s olar 20%)

Andas ol 40% S ham s 24%

CF

25%

PV ~20% 7 © Fraunhofer ISE

50%

Hy dro w orld av rg 44%

75%

Coal av rg 63%

100%

Nuclear up to 90%

Why CSP? Impact on grid infrastructure utilization 

Due to the higher capacity factor the grid infras tructure is us ed m uch m ore effectiv ely with CSP than with plants without storage PV plant without storage

Similar invest in grid infrastructure

175.2 GWh/a

Load center 100 MWe s olar plants Solar tower plant with large storage

100 MVA

100 MVA

s ubs tations

trans m is s ion lines

613.2 GWh/a Much higher annual energy transfer 8 © Fraunhofer ISE

Why CSP? Case study – RE-mix at middle east site PV power production profile vs. load

 PV production follows irradiation with peak at noon

 CPV has slightly lower output because it only uses direct irradiance Exemplary day (June 28th)

9 © Fraunhofer ISE

Annual average

Why CSP? Case study – RE-mix at middle east site CSP production profile vs. load  On a good solar day, CSP storages are filled and the complete period of high load can be covered  With large thermal storage, even 24/7 operation is possible  Also the annual average shows the positive influence of storage Exemplary day (May 5th)

10 © Fraunhofer ISE

Annual average

Why CSP (after announcements on low battery cost)? Rough comparison of Investment Cost for 100 MW Plant Assumptions:



Solar Multiple of 3 sufficient for 24h operation

Important to note: 

Additional Solar field capacity is required for storage charging



Storage efficiency is not 100 % but rather 90 % in case of batteries



Batteries need to be replaced at least once during power plant life time CSP still competitive for dispatchable power

 Detailed comparison warranted

Other

1200 Storage 3

1000 Inv es t, M$



1400

Storage 2

800

Storage 1

600

400

Power Block

200

Solar Field for Storage Solar Field

0 CSP

11 © Fraunhofer ISE

PV no Storage

PV with Storage

Potential of CSP in Northern Chile Case Study  Technologies considered:  parabolic trough collector (PTC) & linear Fresnel collector (LFC)  On 1 km2 a PTC plant could have:

 On 1 km2 a LFC plant could have:

 52 MW nominal capacity

 67 MW nominal capacity

 120 GWh/year annual production

 130 GWh/year annual production

 CSP Potential for Northern Chile: S lope

< 1%

Prox im ity to trans m is s ion Area

[km2]

< 3%

< 20 km

< 50 km

< 20 km

< 50 km

1235

1508

15894

23748

Equivalent installed power [GW]

PTC

64.7

79.0

832.1

1243.4

Generation [TWh]

PTC

147.4

180.0

1897.3

2834.8

Equivalent installed power [GW]

LFC

82.8

101.1

1065.3

1591.7

Generation [TWh]

LFC

160.6

196.1

2066.6

3087.9

28 times current ann. electricity production

Fluri, T. P.; Cuevas, F.; Pidaparthi, P. & Platzer, W. J.: “Assessment Of The Potential For Concentrating Solar Power In Northern Chile” Proceedings of the 17th SolarPACES Conference, 20. - 23. September 2011, Granada, Spain, 2011

12 © Fraunhofer ISE

Challenge I Becoming a Water Producing Technology  Currently CSP is consuming significant amounts of water during operation  Steam cycle make up water  Cooling water replenishment

 Mirror cleaning  Alternative approach: Using waste heat to drive thermal desalination

13 © Fraunhofer ISE

Challenge II Adaptation to small off-grid load centers Demonstration in Egypt  Demonstration of a small (< 10 MWth) solar thermal power plant  Tri-generation: electricity + desalination + district cooling  Parabolic trough CSP plant with molten salt as heat transfer and direct storage fluid (stratified storage tank)  Pilot plant at Borg El Arab (Egypt)

 Project’s key facts: o Plant construction start in 2015 o Fraunhofer ISE responsible for e.g. plant simulation o Project coordinator: ENEA (Italy) o http://www.mats.enea.it/

14 © Fraunhofer ISE

© Novatec

Challenge III Adaptation to local climate and industry •

Assessing sites in detail

• • •

• •

Soiling rates Earth quake potential Corrosion potential

Assessing local industry Dedicated capacity building © Novatec

15 © Fraunhofer ISE

Concentrating Solar Power

 …has a special role to play in facilitating high renewable energy penetration in Chile  …has to become a water producing technology  …has to adapt to small load centers  …has to adapt to local climate and industry

16 © Fraunhofer ISE

¡Muchas gracias!

© RWE

Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE Dr. Tom Fluri www.ise.fraunhofer.de [email protected] 17 © Fraunhofer ISE